The BC Liberals are in the middle of rushing through a new Bill called the Animal Health Act.

This Bill would create fundamental changes to how BC responds to animal disease outbreaks.

In my view the Animal Health Act fails to strike the appropriate balance between empowering the Chief Veterinarian to take the extreme actions that may be necessary in an emergency, with societal obligations to protect the public interest, ensure due process and be transparent and open with information.

With respect to that last point, it is worth emphasizing that the BC Liberals have promised an "open government".

In reality, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is being turned into a piece of swiss cheese.
Section 16 of the Animal Health Act explicitly exempts data gathered through its authority from being subject to a FOI request.

Equally disturbing, this section also appears to gag journalists and others from releasing information about serious animal disease outbreaks. You can read Ethan Baron's excellent article about this in the Province.

When I challenged the Minister on this point late last week, he argued that section 16 does not apply to journalists. His statements - now in Hansard - form part of the formal record. This would undermine any attempt by the government to use this section against journalists or independent scientists.

There is no qualifier on "person" in this section. I'd
like to know if this is a drafting error, because in the following section,
section 17, it does limit the meaning of persons. This suggests that the
broadness of the term was deliberate in section 16.

Hon. D.
McRae:Section 16 must be read within the context of the acts. The
references in section 16 to section 17 and 18 imply that the "person"
in section 16 takes its meaning from those sections. So in section 17,
"person" is implying employees and former employees of the ministry
of the minister, each inspector or former inspector, persons engaged or
previously engaged in the administration of the act, a person responsible for
administering a laboratory and an employee or former employee of a laboratory
identified for the purposes of section 16.[1630]

L.
Popham:I'm going to read this again. Except as
permitted under section 17 or 18, a person must refuse, despite the
freedom-of-information legislation, to disclose the following: information that
would identify or reveal (a) the identity of a person responsible for an
animal, (b) a specific place where animals are kept, (c) information that would
reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present, (d)
information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product affected by a
notifiable, reportable disease is in a place or owned by an identifiable person
or body, (e) info derived from a sample under this act.

So we go back to the reference to a person, and it looks to me
like, on the face of it, the government is trying to prohibit all people from
communicating about the existence or even the possible existence of a
notifiable or a reportable disease. In my interpretation, and in many other
people's interpretations, this is a big overreach, and it would apply to
everyone. If you follow the law that we are now debating, it would apply to
journalists, independent scientists, concerned neighbours, interested
individuals, etc.

This law reads that it applies to everyone. I don't think that,
if you read…. As I read it, and I've had legal consultations, this is a big
concern. It's trying to block information.

I understand the idea that trust must be built between
businesses and the government, allowing for freedom of information. But I don't
think British Columbians have chosen to live in the dark about issues. I don't
think that when the freedom-of-information legislation was voted on in this
House, it was passed unanimously with the idea that it could be used whenever
the government wanted to and then if the government didn't want to, it wasn't
important.

Does section 16 apply to the media and independent scientists
and anyone who would want to inquire around information of a potential disease
outbreak or a disease outbreak? Why would this information be kept from the
public and anyone else who may have a concern about it?

Hon. D.
McRae:The term "person" in this act does not refer to the
media. It does not refer to independent scientists or individuals making
inquiries. The term "person" does refer to the section 17, subsection
(1)(a) through (e) — which I quoted earlier, and I think it's already in the
record, but it was particularly to those (a) through (e) individuals. Again, to
the member opposite, it does not refer to the media, independent scientists or
the general public making inquiries.

L.
Popham:So if the media, if independent
scientists, if other advocacy groups were to inquire around information, around
disease outbreak or potential disease threats, would the information be given
to those people? Would the information be shared with the media so that the
media could then report out on it? I don't think the legislation says that that
would happen.[1635]

Hon. D.
McRae:Again, we're referring in this act to the word
"person." It refers particularly to the positions I mentioned in
section 17(1)(a) through (e). However, if a person involved in the media, an
independent scientist or the general public were to inquire to the individual
farmer about a test's results and the individual farmer wished to share them,
he or she would be more than able to do so. If the farmer were to provide
consent to the ministry, we would also be able to provide that information.

L.
Popham:Well, that's the minister's
interpretation, but I think that section 16 creates an obligation for the
person to refuse to give information. In fact, that's exactly the point. If
they don't refuse, they could be incarcerated; they could be charged. I mean,
there are severe penalties for disclosure of this information.

There's some headshaking going on, and I understand there may be
some frustration. But the interpretation….

I didn't come up with all of this information on my own. I have
also had legal advice, and it is concerning. So if it's not the intention of
section 16 to basically create a gag clause within this legislation, then I
think this section 16 needs to be reworded so it's more clear, because the
advice that I've been given is that this may be an unintended gag clause, but
it's a gag clause.

Hon. D.
McRae:Again, in section 16, the "person" refers to those
mentioned in section 17(1)(a) through (e). Again, I won't read them off. It is
talking about employees of government, inspectors, persons engaged in
administration of the act. It is not referring to media, independent scientists
or people making individual inquiries to such an act.

The Hansard transcript is here. and a video of the session is here. Debate on this Bill continues next week.

This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
at Wednesday, May 23, 2012
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
.

0
comments

Lana Popham, Incumbent & Candidate for Saanich South MLA

Welcome!

I've worked hard as the Official Opposition Critic for Agriculture over the last four years. This blog was created to help track my work so interested folks can see what I'm up to.

I'm not able to update it as often as I would like but it will give you a good sampling of my work.

During the dissolution of the BC Legislature (April 16 - June 5, 2013) this site will be shut down. Some content may remain visible as part of the public record of my past work but other content will be unvailable and/or links may be broken.

You can reach me at info@lanapopham.ca or visit my website at lanapopham.ca.